consiglieri Posted December 22, 2015 Posted December 22, 2015 Elder Bruce R. McConkie gave a resounding “No” to this question in a 1982 BYU speech, where he condemned the idea of Mormons having a “personal relationship with Christ.” https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/bruce-r-mcconkie_relationship-lord/ So that should settle the issue, right? Not so fast. Six-years before this, Elder Faust gave a talk in General Conference in which he advocated that members should have a personal relationship with Christ. The title of his talk? “A Personal Relationship with the Savior.” https://www.lds.org/ensign/1976/11/a-personal-relationship-with-the-savior?lang=eng In the opening of his 1976 talk, Elder Faust quoted approvingly the words of a missionary: One wisely responded: "Is not the greatest need in all of the world for every person to have a personal, ongoing, daily, continuing relationship with the Savior?" Elder Faust continued his theme, also saying: My witness is that we will be called upon to prove our spiritual stamina, for the days ahead will be filled with affliction and difficulty. But with the assuring comfort of a personal relationship with the Savior, we will be given a calming courage. To recap: In 1976, Elder Faust gave a GC talk saying a “personal relationship with the Savior” was “the greatest need in all the world,” and bearing his “witness” that such a relationship with the Savior would provide “calming courage” in the days ahead. Then in 1982, Elder McConkie comes out and slams the idea of having a “personal relationship with Christ.” So my questions are these: Is it important to my eternal salvation whether I have a personal relationship with Jesus? If so, should I have such a personal relationship or should I not? Whom should I believe on this issue? Elder Faust or Elder McConkie?
stemelbow Posted December 22, 2015 Posted December 22, 2015 That's tough. On the one hand, I wouldn't know how any could have a personal relationship with Christ unless he/she somehow meets with and/or talks with Him on, at least, some occasions. On the other hand, I can't imagine it being a problem. So maybe they're both wrong, in the half empty way of viewing it. Or they're both right.
Duncan Posted December 22, 2015 Posted December 22, 2015 I read Elder McConkie as saying any virtue taken to the extreme can be a vice and so is this relationship matter, I think he was speaking out against certain behaviours that he seemed deluded, i.e extreme fasting, prayers, I know Pres. Lee told then Pres. Oaks about the newly built Provo Temple that he feared students would spend their time their and not on their studies. So, a relationship is good but just like any other relationship you can take things way too far 3
stemelbow Posted December 22, 2015 Posted December 22, 2015 1 minute ago, Duncan said: I read Elder McConkie as saying any virtue taken to the extreme can be a vice and so is this relationship matter, I think he was speaking out against certain behaviours that he seemed deluded, i.e extreme fasting, prayers, I know Pres. Lee told then Pres. Oaks about the newly built Provo Temple that he feared students would spend their time their and not on their studies. So, a relationship is good but just like any other relationship you can take things way too far When we fast and pray are we developing a personal relationship with Christ? WHen I hear the phrase I imagine some people think they're prayers and lives are guided by the Savior. I guess that means personal relationship. I can't see how that's a problem.
ksfisher Posted December 22, 2015 Posted December 22, 2015 9 minutes ago, consiglieri said: Elder Bruce R. McConkie gave a resounding “No” to this question in a 1982 BYU speech, where he condemned the idea of Mormons having a “personal relationship with Christ.” https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/bruce-r-mcconkie_relationship-lord/ So that should settle the issue, right? Not so fast. Six-years before this, Elder Faust gave a talk in General Conference in which he advocated that members should have a personal relationship with Christ. The title of his talk? “A Personal Relationship with the Savior.” https://www.lds.org/ensign/1976/11/a-personal-relationship-with-the-savior?lang=eng In the opening of his 1976 talk, Elder Faust quoted approvingly the words of a missionary: One wisely responded: "Is not the greatest need in all of the world for every person to have a personal, ongoing, daily, continuing relationship with the Savior?" Elder Faust continued his theme, also saying: My witness is that we will be called upon to prove our spiritual stamina, for the days ahead will be filled with affliction and difficulty. But with the assuring comfort of a personal relationship with the Savior, we will be given a calming courage. To recap: In 1976, Elder Faust gave a GC talk saying a “personal relationship with the Savior” was “the greatest need in all the world,” and bearing his “witness” that such a relationship with the Savior would provide “calming courage” in the days ahead. Then in 1982, Elder McConkie comes out and slams the idea of having a “personal relationship with Christ.” So my questions are these: Is it important to my eternal salvation whether I have a personal relationship with Jesus? If so, should I have such a personal relationship or should I not? Whom should I believe on this issue? Elder Faust or Elder McConkie? Do you have any specific quotes from Elder McConkie's speech that demonstrate this "resonding no" as you put it? I don't see him "slamming' the idea at all, but rather asking us to place that relationship in it's proper gospel context and not to devote all our spiritual resources to a relationship with Christ to the exclusion of the Father and the Holy Ghost. 1
consiglieri Posted December 22, 2015 Author Posted December 22, 2015 2 minutes ago, ksfisher said: Do you have any specific quotes from Elder McConkie's speech that demonstrate this "resonding no" as you put it? I don't see him "slamming' the idea at all, but rather asking us to place that relationship in it's proper gospel context and not to devote all our spiritual resources to a relationship with Christ to the exclusion of the Father and the Holy Ghost. Well, there is this for starters: Quote There is no salvation in believing any false doctrine, particularly a false or unwise view about the Godhead or any of its members. Eternal life is reserved for those who know God and the One whom he sent to work out the infinite and eternal atonement. True and saving worship is found only among those who know the truth about God and the Godhead and who understand the true relationship men should have with each member of that Eternal Presidency. It follows that the devil would rather spread false doctrine about God and the Godhead, and induce false feelings with reference to any one of them, than almost any other thing he could do. Sounds pretty "slamming" to me . . .
Calm Posted December 22, 2015 Posted December 22, 2015 (edited) There was at the time a little cult going on at BYU among some students and it was spreading. Context for why the 1982 talk was given is important. It had a major rebound effect on a particular popular professor, who was not imo promoting the heresies of the group, but the group was using some of his material as justification. Add-on: my memory isn't that clear as I only attended one of his classes as an invite and his teaching style was not one I enjoyed, though he attracted a packed classroom. After reading some others' remarks, I am reminded that there were some who took his teachings about Enos and praying as instruction to go up in the mountains behind the temple and pray until they had a similar experience. (in a separate incident, a student died up there, so I can understand why if only for the personal danger of wandering around on one's own, the leadership were concerned) One said it was a suggestion by Pace to do such, but I can't confirm that by my own recall. Immediately after the talk. Pace corrected the possible extremes and counseled his students to avoid them, all reports I've read and remember relate him as being very gracious and faithful. He rewrote the book and it was sold at Deseretbook under a new title and according to wiki had a good career at BYU afterwards, not staggeringly as popular, but one reported the drop wasn't that extreme. The biggest issue is one of his son's reactions. Whether the father saw the incident the same way would be interesting to find out. Edited December 22, 2015 by Calm 4
Ahab Posted December 22, 2015 Posted December 22, 2015 It is interesting that Bruce said we should worship "only" our Father. A poor choice of words, I think, to the idea that we should worship our Father first and foremost. Worship involves emulating or following someone as an Exemplar with the intent of becoming like him and we should have that attitude toward Jesus, as a perfect and complete representative of our Father, as well as our Father.
Popular Post ksfisher Posted December 22, 2015 Popular Post Posted December 22, 2015 6 minutes ago, consiglieri said: Well, there is this for starters: Sounds pretty "slamming" to me . . . I'm not reading anything in those quotes as saying we can't have a personal relationship with Christ. Rather, the quotations you provided are teaching us to have a true and correct relationship with all members of the godhead. 9
mfbukowski Posted December 22, 2015 Posted December 22, 2015 (edited) 1 hour ago, consiglieri said: Elder Bruce R. McConkie gave a resounding “No” to this question in a 1982 BYU speech, where he condemned the idea of Mormons having a “personal relationship with Christ.” https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/bruce-r-mcconkie_relationship-lord/ So that should settle the issue, right? Not so fast. Six-years before this, Elder Faust gave a talk in General Conference in which he advocated that members should have a personal relationship with Christ. The title of his talk? “A Personal Relationship with the Savior.” https://www.lds.org/ensign/1976/11/a-personal-relationship-with-the-savior?lang=eng In the opening of his 1976 talk, Elder Faust quoted approvingly the words of a missionary: One wisely responded: "Is not the greatest need in all of the world for every person to have a personal, ongoing, daily, continuing relationship with the Savior?" Elder Faust continued his theme, also saying: My witness is that we will be called upon to prove our spiritual stamina, for the days ahead will be filled with affliction and difficulty. But with the assuring comfort of a personal relationship with the Savior, we will be given a calming courage. To recap: In 1976, Elder Faust gave a GC talk saying a “personal relationship with the Savior” was “the greatest need in all the world,” and bearing his “witness” that such a relationship with the Savior would provide “calming courage” in the days ahead. Then in 1982, Elder McConkie comes out and slams the idea of having a “personal relationship with Christ.” So my questions are these: Is it important to my eternal salvation whether I have a personal relationship with Jesus? If so, should I have such a personal relationship or should I not? Whom should I believe on this issue? Elder Faust or Elder McConkie? Believe no one but the spirit for any question, period. This is not Jonestown. This is the gospel of Jesus Christ. That should tell you whether or not you should have a personal relationship with Him. Edited December 22, 2015 by mfbukowski 3
smac97 Posted December 22, 2015 Posted December 22, 2015 (edited) 52 minutes ago, Calm said: There was at the time a little cult going on at BYU among some students and it was spreading. Context for why the 1982 talk was given is important. It had a major rebound effect on a particular popular professor, who was not imo promoting the heresies of the group, but the group was using some of his material as justification. Add-on: my memory isn't that clear as I only attended one of his classes as an invite and his teaching style was not one I enjoyed, though he attracted a packed classroom. After reading some others' remarks, I am reminded that there were some who took his teachings about Enos and praying as instruction to go up in the mountains behind the temple and pray until they had a similar experience. (in a separate incident, a student died up there, so I can understand why if only for the personal danger of wandering around on one's own, the leadership were concerned) One said it was a suggestion by Pace to do such, but I can't confirm that by my own recall. Immediately after the talk. Pace corrected the possible extremes and counseled his students to avoid them, all reports I've read and remember relate him as being very gracious and faithful. He rewrote the book and it was sold at Deseretbook under a new title and according to wiki had a good career at BYU afterwards, not staggeringly as popular, but one reported the drop wasn't that extreme. The biggest issue is one of his son's reactions. Whether the father saw the incident the same way would be interesting to find out. I think you are referencing George W. Pace. Here's more information about it. I also think that "personal relationship" is a rather nebulous phrase and concept, as evidenced by the following quotes from various sources, including . . . Elder McConkie: Quote A letter to the editor from T. Allen Lambert of Ithaca, New York, pointed out that Elder McConkie himself had written in The Promised Messiah: "Our answers come from the Son. ... [He] pleads our cause. He is our Mediator and Intercessor. Righteous persons do have a close, personal relationship with their Savior" (p. 335). The Relief Society manual for April 1982 contained a lesson, "Developing a Relationship with the Savior," (pp. 24-26), which quoted President Marion G. Romney on the importance of "personal two-way communication with the Lord" and Brigham Young as saying, "The greatest and most important of all requirements ... is to believe in Jesus Christ, confess him, seek him, cling to him, make friends with him" (Journal of Discourses 8:339). Lambert continued: Elder James E. Faust in general conference had queried: "‘Is not the greatest need in all the world for every person to have a personal, ongoing, daily, continuing relationship with the Savior? ... Having such a relationship can unchain the divinity within us.’ And he spoke of ‘... The assuring comfort of a personal relationship with the Savior." ("A Personal Relationship with the Savior," Ensign, Nov. 1976, 85). H. Burke Peterson of the Presidency Bishopric urged listeners to "develop your personal relationship with the Savior" (Ensign, November 1981, 36). Elder Neal A. Maxwell, as a newly sustained apostle, said: "We can trust, worship, and even adore him [Jesus] without any reservation" (Ensign, Nov. 1981, 8). I think Elder McConkie had a more precise definition in mind when he gave his talk in 1982 (at BYU, where Bro. Pace was teaching, rather than at General Conference). Thanks, -Smac Edited December 22, 2015 by smac97 2
consiglieri Posted December 22, 2015 Author Posted December 22, 2015 Making the matter more interesting is that The Ensign decided to republish Elder Faust's 1976 General Conference talk in their January 1999 issue. https://www.lds.org/ensign/1999/01/that-we-might-know-thee?lang=eng Only they changed the title and removed every reference to having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ . . . 1
Duncan Posted December 22, 2015 Posted December 22, 2015 8 minutes ago, consiglieri said: Making the matter more interesting is that The Ensign decided to republish Elder Faust's 1976 General Conference talk in their January 1999 issue. https://www.lds.org/ensign/1999/01/that-we-might-know-thee?lang=eng Only they changed the title and removed every reference to having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ . . . They took out a reference to the Saviour, were there more? if so maybe they took out stuff due to other constraints?
Calm Posted December 22, 2015 Posted December 22, 2015 (edited) 38 minutes ago, consiglieri said: Making the matter more interesting is that The Ensign decided to republish Elder Faust's 1976 General Conference talk in their January 1999 issue. https://www.lds.org/ensign/1999/01/that-we-might-know-thee?lang=eng Only they changed the title and removed every reference to having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ . . . i think you are mistaken. Perhaps you were relying on another's report and didn't read it completely? There are 8 uses of the term "personal", tthree linked with the term "relationship, though the rest imo also refer to a personal interaction and thus relationship. For example: "Fourth, a daily acknowledgment of His divinity. To have a daily, personal relationship with the Master, we must be His disciples" From the talk. Edited December 22, 2015 by Calm 4
hope_for_things Posted December 22, 2015 Posted December 22, 2015 The history of these talks is so funny. McConkie is opinionated, even though so many of his opinions are pure speculation and cause problems for the church, because he was a loud voice with authority his ideas carry a lot of weight in church culture. The church doing this dance with mainstream Christianity, wanting to be accepted by them, but not too accepted. Fun stuff!
stemelbow Posted December 22, 2015 Posted December 22, 2015 Well, in truth having "a personal relationship with the Savior" is a very Protestant or even Evangelical way of putting it. I think Elder McConkie was attempting to keep our distance. I think it largely worked. I recall on my mission when ever an elder started to adopt the wording there was always someone, another missionary, or member offered a Bruce R. McConkie correction. It was a cute legalistic or pharisaic-like activity.
Calm Posted December 22, 2015 Posted December 22, 2015 In regards to Pres. Faust's 76 and 99 articles, there is the addition of a reference to Christ and a removal of a quote by Spencer w. Kimball that doesn't refer to Christ, plus the removal of the intro that had nothing to do with the actual talk and the alteration at the end to reflect time passing (in the original he refers to his new calling). I don't any removal of content referring to a personal relationship. Perhaps you can point out where you think this is occurring. 4
HappyJackWagon Posted December 22, 2015 Posted December 22, 2015 The concept of having a personal relationship with Jesus is nice but a relationship requires interaction. I can love, respect, honor, praise, & worship deity based on my understanding of Him and what He has done, but that's not a relationship. In the next life it may be possible and if it is I think it would be a marvelous thing. I just don't think it's realistic in this life though I can't imagine there being a problem with seeking to feel connected to Him.
Duncan Posted December 22, 2015 Posted December 22, 2015 2 hours ago, stemelbow said: When we fast and pray are we developing a personal relationship with Christ? WHen I hear the phrase I imagine some people think they're prayers and lives are guided by the Savior. I guess that means personal relationship. I can't see how that's a problem. when you fast for a week or pray about which direction to turn while driving(I know a lady who does stuff like that) or spend hours in the mountains trying to see Jesus or something like that, is that okay? To me, that's what Elder McConkie what speaking against, when you go too far 1
stemelbow Posted December 22, 2015 Posted December 22, 2015 1 minute ago, Duncan said: when you fast for a week or pray about which direction to turn while driving(I know a lady who does stuff like that) or spend hours in the mountains trying to see Jesus or something like that, is that okay? To me, that's what Elder McConkie what speaking against, when you go too far I've spent many an hour in the mountains speaking to God. I'm really not sure I see a problem with it. A lady who prays about which direction to turn while driving is cute. It hardly seems harmful until in answer to her prayers she drives off a cliff or into a lake or something. I don't see why Elder McConkie see it worth talking about stuff like that. I think it's far more about him trying to say, "hey we can't talk like we're evangelicals. That'd be a mistake". But that too seems like a silly thing to worry about. It all seem rather pharisaic to me.
Calm Posted December 22, 2015 Posted December 22, 2015 I think it is more of those who go up into the mountains with a commitment not to come down unless _______ happens rather than being open to the Spirit. 1
HappyJackWagon Posted December 22, 2015 Posted December 22, 2015 1 minute ago, stemelbow said: I've spent many an hour in the mountains speaking to God. I'm really not sure I see a problem with it. A lady who prays about which direction to turn while driving is cute. It hardly seems harmful until in answer to her prayers she drives off a cliff or into a lake or something. I don't see why Elder McConkie see it worth talking about stuff like that. I think it's far more about him trying to say, "hey we can't talk like we're evangelicals. That'd be a mistake". But that too seems like a silly thing to worry about. It all seem rather pharisaic to me. How do you build a relationship with Christ through prayer if you are praying to God the father? Perhaps McConkie's issue was with praying to Christ instead of the father? 2
stemelbow Posted December 22, 2015 Posted December 22, 2015 3 minutes ago, Calm said: I think it is more of those who go up into the mountains with a commitment not to come down unless _______ happens rather than being open to the Spirit. SOunds like a big problem? Maybe? I wonder how many people went into the mountains and never came back back in 1982. It must have happened. Any deaths recorded?
stemelbow Posted December 22, 2015 Posted December 22, 2015 2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: How do you build a relationship with Christ through prayer if you are praying to God the father? Perhaps McConkie's issue was with praying to Christ instead of the father? I think so. I think he was overzealous with this stuff, though. The only reason I see him concerned about it is so we don't turn into evangelicals. 1
CV75 Posted December 22, 2015 Posted December 22, 2015 2 hours ago, consiglieri said: So my questions are these: Is it important to my eternal salvation whether I have a personal relationship with Jesus? If so, should I have such a personal relationship or should I not? Whom should I believe on this issue? Elder Faust or Elder McConkie? 1.) "Yes" in general, but "no" in that what you do with that relationship is even more important; 2) Yes, you should have the best personal relationship possible with Jesus; 3) You should believe both because they are both offering guidance about how to have the best personal relationship and what to do with that relationship, that is, how not to create a personal relationship in our own image.
Recommended Posts